Friday, May 11, 2012

Hanif – face reality that you have shot yourself in the foot disqualifying you from heading a credible and impartial probe into Bersih 3.0 violence

Hanif – face reality that you have shot yourself in
the foot disqualifying you from heading a credible and impartial probe
into Bersih 3.0 violence

-Lim Kit Siang

Let me tell former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar
frankly: “Tun, face reality that you have shot yourself in the foot
disqualifying you from heading a credible and impartial probe into
Bersih 3.0 violence.”

Hanif should stop being obstinate on the matter or he would only end
up in severely embarrassing and dishonouring himself, the Bersih 3.0
probe, the Najib administration and most important of all, Malaysia’s
international image and standing.

Haniff had asked his critics to check his track record in previous
investigating committees before questioning his integrity to lead the
independent panel to probe police brutality during the Bersih 3.0 rally,
citing the case of the fatal shooting of 14-year-old Aminulrasyhid
Amzah and his role in the Special Commission to Enhance the Operations
and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police in 2004.

I had said publicly that I do not cast any aspersion on his integrity
as a distinguished public servant and a Malaysian patriot, but on the
question on the suitability of his heading a credible and impartial
probe into Bersih 3.0 violence, regardless of whether the victim is
police personnel, media representative or peaceful protestor, he had
irremediably stained and disqualified himself because of his highly
biased and prejudicial statements about the Bersih 3.0 “sit-in” in
Dataran Merdeka on April 28.

If Hanif stands by his prejudicial statements against Bersih 3.0, he
should appear before the Bersih 3.0 probe as a “star witness” to
substantiate his allegations and definitely not as a Chairman to probe
into the truth or otherwise of his allegations.
Or is Hanif clarifying that he had been misquoted by the mainstream
mass media, for instance, Berita Minggu, which quoted him as supporting
the wild and baseless claim of the Prime Minister that Bersih 3.0 was an
attempted coup d’etat by the Opposition to topple the government; and
that Bernama had misquoted him as alleging that he identified
pro-communist individuals at Bersih 3.0 from demonstrations in the 1970s
and on the use of provocateurs and children in the Bersih 3.0 rally as
tactics of the communists?

Even if Hanif were to make amends by claiming that Berita Minggu and
Bernama had completely misquoted him, and that he had never said what
was attributed to him by the mainstream mass media, the damage had been
done as the next question would be why he had allowed so many days to
pass before making such corrections?

Nor can the damage, destroying all credibility in him as head of the
probe into Bersih 3.0 violence, be repaired or undone with him
retracting these statements and allegations reported by Berita Minggu
and Bernama.

In any event, is Hanif prepared to retract all these statement and
allegations about Bersih 3.0 attributed to him by the mainstream mass
media?

This is why for the first time in the nation’s 54-year history, a
government announcement on the head of a public inquiry has met with
instant and all-round rejection and even condemnation – why National
Union of Journalists (NUJ), Suaram, Bersih 2.0 and even the Deputy
Higher Education Minister Saifuddin Abdullah for instance have declared
their objection to Hanif’s appointment.

The only persons who would be happy with Hanif’s appointment would be
the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the Home Minister Datuk
Seri Hishammudin Hussein and the Inspector-General Tan Sri Ismail Omar –
ranged against the entire justice-conscious civil society and Malaysian
citizenry.

Is this what Hanif want?

Hanif’s declining his appointment is in fact an opportunity for the
Prime Minister to re-think the question of a proper, credible and
legitimate inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence, as “independent
advisory panel” announced by Hishammuddin on Wednesday raises many
disturbing questions about its powers, role, terms of reference and
relevance.

I fully agree with the human rights watchdog Proham that the Home
Ministry had chosen the “weakest” of options available to investigate
the violence which occurred during the Bersih 3.0 rally.

Proham said the first choice should have been a royal commission of
inquiry, as under the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, it would ensure
that the investigative body would be perceived as truly neutral,
effective and independent.

A royal commission of inquiry would have the powers to compel
witnesses to appear before the hearing which will be deemed to be
judicial proceedings.

In addition the commission would have the legal protection from any
liable suits and the witnesses who give evidence will be protected from
any liable suits or other civil proceedings in respect of such evidence.

Another option is invoking powers of the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) to undertake an independent inquiry.

Proham is right that these are better options than the so-called
“independent advisory panel” established by the home ministry to be led
by former inspector-general of police Hanif Omar as it would not have
the necessary legal powers to conduct a proper investigation and also
lacked balance in professional, ethnic and gender representation.